Government creates a framework for private enterprise and industry to thrive. Public roads allow our customers to drive to our businesses. Law Enforcement ensures the safety and security of our community(otherwise, we'd have to dole out money for private security). Regulations allow businesses to operate within a set of rules to ensure overall safety of people and the environment.

Think of it as a tightrope walker.....its easy to just tip over either side and fall into the net.....its difficult to stay balanced.

Government creates a framework for private enterprise and industry to thrive. Public roads allow our customers to drive to our businesses. Law Enforcement ensures the safety and security of our community(otherwise, we'd have to dole out money for private security). Regulations allow businesses to operate within a set of rules to ensure overall safety of people and the environment.

Think of it as a tightrope walker.....its easy to just tip over either side and fall into the net.....its difficult to stay balanced.

Always exceptions to the rules for example a lot of times companies will take on jobs that they know they are going to lose money on to get other jobs they will be able to make enough profit on to cover the loss of the first job.

Would you take a job in which it cost you more in gas to get to the job then you were making at the job?

its pretty common sense, if youre going to lose money in the long run then dont do it.

no it was b/c the majority of the country was against the legislation and still are...

Nonsense. It was a purely political move, which they made without examing the legislation in question and judging it on its merits. Pay attention: I'm not saying that they would have discovered it was a worthwhile piece of legislation if they had examined it; they wouldn't have. But the stance of the Republicans on this - and every other issue that came before Congress during the Obama Administration - was purely partisan.

the majority of their constituents didnt want this horrible piece of legislation passed thats why they didnt vote for it.

Right, because Members of Congress always vote exactly the way their constituents would vote... But let's assume that they do - that they just reflect the will of their constituents at any given point in time. So what? It's hardly surprising that a district that elected a Republican congressman would be populated with Republicans who would, more likely than not, be opposed to Obamacare.

Do you not remember all the town halls were ppl were telling their reps that if they voted for it they were going to get voted out of office?

Excluding those are are in the center, who are "in play" so to speak, the parties have a more or less even split of the vote, each from their respective ends of the spectrum; For every one such person there was another person saying "if you don't vote for it, you're going to get voted out of office."

They changed their minds because doong so was politically wise. They knew that attacking obamas reform would get them votes and they helped to increase public outcry against it by coming up with all sorts of propaganda about government takeover of healthcare socialized medicine death panels etc when none of it was true. TheFact remains that obamacare was a compromise from the single payer system liberals wanted. The obamacare was designed by repoblicams and had their support up intill obama decided to use it

Nonsense. It was a purely political move, which they made without examing the legislation in question and judging it on its merits. Pay attention: I'm not saying that they would have discovered it was a worthwhile piece of legislation if they had examined it; they wouldn't have. But the stance of the Republicans on this - and every other issue that came before Congress during the Obama Administration - was purely partisan.

Right, because Members of Congress always vote exactly the way their constituents would vote... But let's assume that they do - that they just reflect the will of their constituents at any given point in time. So what? It's hardly surprising that a district that elected a Republican congressman would be populated with Republicans who would, more likely than not, be opposed to Obamacare.

Excluding those are are in the center, who are "in play" so to speak, the parties have a more or less even split of the vote, each from their respective ends of the spectrum; For every one such person there was another person saying "if you don't vote for it, you're going to get voted out of office."

maybe you dont follow politics very close but the amount of uproar over obama care was unprecedented.

If you dont think the constituents of these politicians didnt want obamacare passed how do you explain the blood bath the dems took in 2010?

More jobs were created under Clinton with that astronomical 3% tax hike.

Perhaps but what you may not know is that correlation does not imply causation... It's not impossible that the economy thrived under Clinton despite tax hikes; after all, the economy doesn't only accept and react to one single input. Besides, even if higher taxes did not have any direct effect on the economy, there are other questions to consider, including whether it's moral to take more money from people at the point of the proverbial gun.

But seriously. No one hires more or less people than it takes to do a job.

End of story.

Actually, in my line of work, we staff to expected demand plus current work.. Walking the fine line between having enough to meet current requirements with enough, but not too much on the beach to handle burst work has huge margin impacts.

Perhaps but what you may not know is that correlation does not imply causation... It's not impossible that the economy thrived under Clinton despite tax hikes; after all, the economy doesn't only accept and react to one single input. Besides, even if higher taxes did not have any direct effect on the economy, there are other questions to consider, including whether it's moral to take more money from people at the point of the proverbial gun.